Independent Law journalists report on legal news for consumers, litigants & Scotland's legal community including features on justice, access to justice, law reform, the judiciary, politics & in-depth investigations, analysis and commentaries on legal related issues.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Law Society of Scotland’s weak touch self-regulation allows ‘crooked lawyers’ to continue working for unsuspecting clients. THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND’S self serving, self protecting system of lawyers regulating each other has once again demonstrated the Scottish legal profession is thoroughly unfit to regulate its 10,000 solicitors and protect the client’s best interests at the same time, as the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed this weekend yet another ‘disgraced lawyer’ solicitor Steven Anderson, has returned to work after the Scottish Legal Aid Board found him guilt of making ‘unjustified claims’, while the Law Society has taken NO ACTION to protect the public.

The Sunday Mail’s investigation into Steven Anderson came after Scottish Legal Aid Board issued an earlier Press Release stating an investigation had found non-compliance with SLAB’s Code of Practice for Criminal Legal Assistance. The SLAB Press Release identified solicitor Steven Anderson, stating “this non‐compliance included: holding unnecessary meetings with clients, and making inappropriate, multiple and repetitive grants of advice and assistance”. Curiously however, the Press Release from the Scottish Legal Aid Board contained no figures of how much money in terms of claims to the Legal Aid Board Mr Anderson had received, now revealed by the Sunday Mail to stand at a staggering £560,330.

Scottish Legal Aid Board also identified other ‘non complying’ solicitors. One can only wonder why Mr Anderson’s staggering legal aid claims figure was omitted from SLAB’s earlier Press Release, which also named Iain Robertson, director of Roberston and Ross Limited & solicitor, Alistair Gibb, stating they had overcharged the Board for travel to various prisons, which resulted in a massive £221,847 repayment to SLAB, yet no prosecution by the Crown Office.You can read more about the SLAB announcement in my earlier report on the matter, here :Justice for all ? Scotland’s Crown Office refuse to prosecute ‘crooked lawyers’ who 'wrongly' claimed £221K in Legal Aid funds

While the Law Society has this week been engaged in a force feeding of ‘good press’ to some newspapers over the ‘achievements’ (rolling in the cash) of some solicitors in the legal profession to paper over the weekend’s reporting of the latest slew of ‘crooked lawyers’ operating in ‘regulatory anonymity’ I thought I would close the month of Augusts' coverage with a reminder of the true face of Scotland’s legal fraternity, along with a reminder of exactly what the Law Society did with regard to Mr Anderson’s apparently unnecessary legal aid claims. Nothing. The same nothing the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission do time & again when faced with thousands of complaints from Scots against their solicitors, and the question of what to do about ‘crooked lawyers’.

For solicitors who feel like fiddling the taxpayer, there should be an automatic striking off of any solicitor who falsely claims legal aid, as well as automatic prosecution in the criminal courts. Read on for the Sunday Mail’s excellent investigation :

The Scottish Legal Aid Board found Anderson guilty of making unjustified claims and blocked £500,000 of pending payments. They also banned all future claims by the 52-year-old and his firm, Andersons Solicitors, in Springburn, Glasgow. The inquiry concluded that Anderson held unnecessary meetings with clients and made “inappropriate, multiple and repetitive” claims.

Anderson – whose ex-legal partner was jailed for storing guns for the McGovern crime clan – has been forced to close down his former firm. But Sunday Mail investigators have found it is business as usual for Anderson. Last week, he was working in the office of Lanigan Meechan & Co – where his old company were based. The firm even have the same phone number used by his old company.

Because of the legal aid ban, Anderson is only allowed to work for private clients who pay their own fees. Anderson, from Knightswood, Glasgow, said: “Every penny I claimed in legal aid can be justified and I have not obtained any payment by fraud. “I’d often work 16 hours a day and had two other solicitors working for me to spread the load. “I would regularly argue with SLAB about payments and I believe I’ve been deregistered because I was too much trouble. “They still owe me around £300,000 but they have offered to pay me less than 80 per cent of my submitted fees.”

Taxpayers last year forked out £150.4million in fees for those who couldn’t afford legal representation in Scotland.

In 2008-09, Anderson’s firm raked in £560,330 of legal aid. In that same year the top-earning firm in Scotland – Livingstone Brown, with around 20 lawyers and six offices – received £1.98million. The highest-earning QC was Donald Findlay, with £370,900 of legal aid, while Gordon Jackson QC got £314,100.

A SLAB spokesman said: “Where claims are inappropriate, these are not being paid. The outstanding sums claimed amount to around £500,000. “Mr Anderson has consistently failed to provide information necessary to support his claims and we await his response on a large number of cases. “The amount of staff resource required to deal with Mr Anderson’s accounts has been excessive.”

Anderson was previously cleared of a legal aid fiddle along with his ex-partner James McIntyre. The pair – along with a third partner – appeared before the Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal in 1999 following a SLAB raid on their office. At the time, McIntyre was serving three years in prison for storing guns at his home in Linlithgow, West Lothian, for the Springburn-based McGovern family. He was later struck off.

Anderson is still registered at his old office address with the Law Society of Scotland.John Lanigan, a partner in Lanigan Meechan & Co said: “Steven Anderson has no connection with my firm but he’s based there.”

However, it transpires the amount claimed by judges may be higher as the Scottish Government, who were & still are responsible for paying judges salaries, ranging from a mere £172,753.00 for ‘outer house judges’ to the Lord President’s staggering £214,165.00 now admit there were no details held of the individual expenses claims for judges on a central database as the accounts system only recorded the totals charged against headings such as Travel and Subsistence.

The total Travel & Subsistence claims from Scotland’s 34 Senators of the College of Justice for the financial year 2009-10 was £78,988 of which, £16,299 was for Inner House judges, and the remaining £62,689 was for Outer House. The Scottish Government said the only other expenses they would record in the accounts are the Wig & Gown allowance, a one-off payment when a new judge is appointed. It transpired no such payments were made during 2009-10.

To the figures into perspective against the salaries of Scotland’s Court of Session judges :

Scotland’s Lord President Lord Hamilton heads the new Scottish Court Service Corporate Body, a duty of which will be to keep an eye on expenses. The disclosure from the Scottish Government went onto state that although Scottish Government remains responsible for paying judges salaries, from 1 April 2010 responsibility for paying all other judicial expenses transferred to the Judicial Office as part of the new Scottish Court Service corporate body, established following implementation of the Judiciary & Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.

While the Scottish Government apparently did not hold details of judges individual expenses claims, the situation in England & Wales is markedly different, with all judicial expenses being registered, where ‘the expenses claims of High Court Judges and above are recorded in such a way that they can be attributed to individual judges and published at regular intervals’.

Details of the English judicial expenses system and figures can be found here : Judicial Expenses for England & Wales, and as expenses are now to be ‘held centrally’ by the new Judicial Office, it is to be hoped a similar air of transparency regarding judicial expenses claims will prevail in Scotland, with all expenses details being published online, in keeping with the rest of the UK.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review published in 2009 recommended significant reforms to Scots justice system.THECIVIL COURTS REVIEW, the two year review undertaken by Scotland’s Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill which recommended significant, wide ranging reforms to Scotland’s antiquated Civil Justice system, is about to face its first anniversary since publication. However, a year on since the report was launched amid a blaze of publicity, there is little to show by way of reforms to the justice system, which Lord Gill himself branded “Victorian”, failing to deliver efficiency of justice or Scots accessibility of justice.

Lord Gill, in his speech to the Law Society of Scotland’s 60 year anniversary conference last year, said : “The civil justice system in Scotland is a Victorian model that had survived by means of periodic piecemeal reforms. But in substance its structure and procedures are those of a century and a half ago. It is failing the litigant and it is failing society."

He continued : "It is essential that we should have a system that has disputes resolved at a judicial level that is appropriate to their degree of importance and that disputes should be dealt with expeditiously and efficiently and without unnecessary or unreasonable cost. That means that the judicial structure should be based on a proper hierarchy of courts and that the procedures should be appropriate to the nature and the importance of the case, in terms of time and cost.”

“Scottish civil justice fails on all of these counts. Its delays are notorious. It costs deter litigants whose claims may be well-founded. Its procedures cause frustration and obstruct rather than facilitate the achievement of justice."

"Unless there is major reform and soon, individual litigants will be prevented from securing their rights, commercial litigants will continue to look elsewhere for a forum for their claims, public confidence in the judicial system will be further eroded, Scotland’s economic development will be hindered, and Scots law will atrophy as an independent legal system.”

Here we are at the end of August 2010, and sadly little has changed.

Lord Gill’s definition of “major reform and soon” must have translated badly to the Scottish Government & Parliament, falling on the traditionally deaf ears of Scots politicians and the legal establishment, ever keen to ensure ‘access to justice’ remains a money making empire for the legal profession, rather than actually affording the right of access to justice to all Scots in our own country.

Readers can download the Civil Courts Review report in pdf format, from the Scottish Courts Website at the following links :

Of course, it must be pointed out one notable success since the Civil Courts Review was published last September, is the partial implementation of McKenzie Friends for Scotland, so far introduced to the Court of Session and soon to be introduced to all Sheriff Courts in Scotland.

McKenzie Friends for Scotland were only forced through to implementation after Holyrood Petition & November 2009 court ruling. However, the introduction of McKenzie Friends would probably not even have occurred had it not been for two key developments since Lord Gill made his recommendation to introduce the internationally acclaimed lay courtroom helper, where Petition 1247 filed at the Scottish Parliament by Stewart MacKenzie gained significant support & public exposure, effectively forcing the entire issue of lay assistance into the public spotlight, aided by Lord Woolman’s November 2009 ruling in the case of M.Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others (A1628/01), which overtook the slow pace of events at Holyrood and introduced Scotland’s first civil law McKenzie Friend in the Court of Session.

We are now left with the majority of Lord Gill’s recommendations still to be implemented, as the likes of the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates seek ways to ensure implementation of the Civil Courts Review’s aim of ‘wider, more efficient access to justice for all Scots’ also equates to pounds in the pockets of solicitors & advocates, rather than heaven forbid, reforming the justice system to the point that most people do not need to run up huge bills with law firms for litigation which could be heard and judged upon in a much speedier, consumer friendly updated civil justice system which the Civil Courts Review recommended.

Dean of Faculty supported calls for Class Actions in early 2009, yet over a year on nothing has happened. One example of the malaise which has hit the Civil Courts Review is that of the introduction of Class Actions to the Scottish justice system, an idea once supported by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates Richard Keen QC, as an idea to take on the big banks. However, since Mr Keen’s call to allow class actions against banks was featured in the Scotsman newspaper in January 2009, the banks have of course, recovered somewhat from their weak bargaining positions of early 2009, and, with a little cash injection of extra sponsorship of events held by the Scottish legal profession, calls for the introduction of class actions since early 2009 have been all but silenced by, what many would term ‘hush money’.

October 2009 : Shirley Anne Somerville MSP speaks on the merits of introducing Class Actions to Scotland, yet one year on, not a hint anything on Class Actions will happen soon.

Holyrood goes slow on justice reforms, so Scots must give their views, campaign for wider access to justice to be implemented sooner rather than later. While Scots wait, and wait, and wait, and wait for the Scottish Government & Parliament to actually do something and ensure the many reforms of the Civil Courts Review are implemented, hopefully sometime before the next election, instead of sometime in the next 500 years, readers can also give their input into the Civil Justice Advisory Group, who have launched their own consultation on the best way forward for implementing the many recommendations made by Lord Gill’s report, an issue I reported on in early August, here : Consumers urged to give their views as Civil Justice Advisory Group launches consultation on key proposals of Lord Gill’s Civil Courts Review

The consultation and seminar feedback will help the Group in formulating a detailed report to the Scottish Government on how it should take forward some of the recommendations of the Scottish civil courts review report.

I would urge as many readers as possible to take part in this consultation, for the benefit of yourself and all Scots who need access to a fairer, much improved Civil Justice system in our own land. Access to justice for one, access to justice for all !

Friday, August 20, 2010

Scotland’s Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion investigates Scottish Legal Complaints Commission claims of ‘anonymous’ threats.CLAIMS OF ANONYMOUS THREATS allegedly directed tomembers of staff and other individuals connected to the controversial law complaints regulator, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, are to be investigated by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, after the SLCC refused to provide Mr Dunion’s office and journalists making Freedom of Information requests on the subject with any evidence to support the claims, which legal insiders today commented, if accurate, should also be investigated by the Police.

Master Policy secrecy : Scottish Legal Complaints Commission attempted to thwart disclosure & publication of key evidence of Master Policy Research by making unsupported allegations of threats received. In a decision earlier this year (Decision 89/2010), relating to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and its handling of FOI requests for information connected with the Law Society of Scotland’s Master Insurance Policy, now known to have caused deaths among consumers, the Information Commissioner Mr Kevin Dunion stated : “The SLCC submitted that disclosure of such information would impact upon the physical or mental health of the individuals concerned as anonymous threats had been received by individuals and other individuals connected to the SLCC. However, the Commissioner has not received any evidence of such threats to people such as the individuals in question.”

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission faced a further investigation after it chose to censor FOI disclosures to specific journalists amid fears of media attention. In a subsequent investigation carried out by the Information Commissioner, Mr Kevin Dunion into the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s censorship of its board minutes in reposes to Freedom of Information requests from certain journalists, the SLCC made additional claims it had received ‘anonymous threats’, apparently hoping this would be enough to prevent an order for disclosure. The FOI Commissioner again reported that no evidence had been produced by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to back up its claims.

Claims of more ‘anonymous threats’ were made by the SLCC during a second investigation by the FOI Commissioner. Mr Dunion, in a second decision involving the SLCC and its selective censorship of its own board minutes (Decision 101/2010) commented on the additional claims made by the SLCC of ‘anonymous threats’, saying: “The SLCC submitted that disclosure of such information would impact upon the physical or mental health of the individuals concerned as anonymous threats had been received by members of staff and other individuals connected to the SLCC. The SLCC also referred to threats made to other bodies. 56. The Commissioner notes that the individuals in question here are not employees of the SLCC and do not work in SLCC buildings. While he recognises that some of the individuals whose details have been withheld are connected to bodies to which threats have been made, he considers that the profile and role of those individuals is such that their relationship with the SLCC is likely to be public knowledge. The Commissioner cannot therefore accept that the disclosing their names from the minutes is likely to endanger, or will endanger, their health and safety in terms of section 39(1) of FOISA.”

“57. In most other cases, the individuals are not connected to such bodies. The Commissioner has not been provided with any evidence of danger, or likelihood of danger, to the health or safety these third parties, and cannot accept that section 39(1) applies to this information.”

A legal insider commented on the claims of ‘anonymous threats’ made by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, saying he believed the SLCC were making spurious claims in order to excuse deficiencies within their operations which could be revealed by Freedom of Information.

He said : “If there is no evidence produced by the SLCC of these actual threats, which, given their alleged very serious nature I would have expected to have been reported to Police, then it is highly likely in my opinion the SLCC are seeking to abuse Freedom of Information legislation, in terms of their own handling of FOI requests and their input into investigations carried out by the Information Commissioner himself.”

He continued : “In the circumstances, where it appears the SLCC made their claim to the Information Commissioner in the hope it would influence the outcome of his investigation, I would urge Mr Dunion to establish whether there is any truth to the SLCC’s claims it’s staff or staff from other bodies it referred to have been threatened.”

If however, there is no truth to the allegations, we are left with the only possibly conclusion in that the SLCC presented false information to the Information Commissioner, a matter which would clearly reflect on the SLCC’s credibility and the individual who signed off on the claims to the Information Commissioner.

The Scottish Government refused to back the SLCC over ‘anonymous threats’ claims to the Information Commissioner. The Scottish Government, asked for a comment on the situation, apparently refusing to support the SLCC’s claims, stated : “‘The SLCC has been established as an independent body to oversee complaints against the legal profession. Having established the SLCC as an independent body, it would be wholly inappropriate for Ministers to provide a running commentary on issues concerning it.”

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refused to make any comment on the matter or offer any statement to support their claims now being investigated by the FOI Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

McKenzie Friends will soon appear to assist party litigants in Scotland’s Sheriff Courts. SHERIFF COURTS across Scotland are on the way to formalising the arrangements for unrepresented party litigants to obtain the services of a McKenzie Friend, the usually non-lawyer lay courtroom helpers which have provided invaluable assistance to thousands of party litigants in the English court system for the past forty years, after the Sheriff Court Rules Council let it be known their work on the issue is at draft stage, hopefully soon to be concluded.

A spokesman for the Sheriff Court Rules Council on being asked about the developments to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s Sheriff Courts after I had reported earlier on the Sheriff Court Rules Council’s consideration of the issue, said yesterday : “I can confirm that the Sheriff Court Rules Council considered draft rules for the use of a McKenzie Friend in civil proceedings in the sheriff court at its meeting on 6 August.“

He continued : “The Council agreed with the recommendation of its working group that a different approach to that of the Court of Session was necessary namely that the procedure involved should be less formal with no certification as regards the suitability of the individual which the party litigant wishes to assist in the conduct of the proceedings being required. I should advise you also that the draft rules require some amendment so they are still under consideration by the Council.”

Lord Hamilton & Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill were caught out by speed & widespread support of Holyrood McKenzie Friends Petition. The Sheriff Court Rules Council’s consideration of the McKenzie Friend question, follows the implementation of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s Highest court, the Court of Session after Scotland’s Chief Judge, the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, and the Scottish Government were caught on the hop when a public petition (Petition 1247) was filed at the Scottish Parliament by Stewart MacKenzie, asking Holyrood’s Petitions Committee to address the 40 year exclusion of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts. Video footage of the Scottish Parliament’s hearings on Petition 1247 can be viewed online at InjusticeTV.

Court of Session judge Lord Woolman granted Scotland’s first civil law McKenzie Friend in late 2009. Not long after Lord Gill’s report on civil law reforms was published, a decision in what appears to be Scotland’s longest running civil claims action, now in its f o u r t e e n t h year, M.Wilson v North Lanarkshire Council & Others (A1628/01), overtook events at Holyrood and introduced Scotland’s first civil law McKenzie Friend in the Court of Session, granted by Lord Woolman, making the decision to introduce McKenzie Friends to general use in the Court of Session and lower Sheriff Courts, a formality, albeit a decision taking the best part of a year to complete.

Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates initially objected to Holyrood Petition bringing McKenzie Friends to Scottish Courts. The exclusion of McKenzie Friends from Scottish Courts has been attributed by many seasoned law reform campaigners, several politicians and even some insiders within the legal profession to the lobbying power of the Law Society of Scotland, who, along with the Faculty of Advocates, initially opposed calls to introduce the internationally acclaimed lay courtroom helper to Scotland’s courts, over fears consumers would turn to McKenzie Friends to save themselves the notoriously unjustifiably huge solicitor’s fees which are typical of even the simplest court actions in Scotland, a well known obstacle to justice which has excluded many members of the public from gaining access to Scotland’s courts over the past four decades.

However, while the legal profession have traditionally viewed themselves as the providers of access to justice to Scots, the fact is the legal profession are simply a multi billion pound business, who for many years have themselves monopolised Scots access to the court system & access to legal services, in effect, selecting who among Scotland’s population had access to justice, while excluding those who the Law Society decided should not be allowed near a court. Many know this to be true, as do many of Scotland’s highest judges. There are thousands of examples a year to support this view, with a trail of people left out in the cold by the legal profession who as a whole have little regard for the rights of individuals unless there is a huge amount of money to be made from their predicament.

Placing the interests of what is nothing more than a business above the rights of Scots to enjoy unfettered access to justice, is wholly wrong, and for this reason, many consumer groups across the UK backed the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts, to increase Scottish consumer’s access to justice.

A senior official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations today welcomed the developments from the Sheriff Court Rules Council, expressing hope the Scottish Court Service would offer written guidance in all of Scotland’s Sheriff Courts to assist members of the public on the issue, allowing informed choices to be made on using McKenzie Friends in cases which may benefit consumers & the interests of justice considerably by the use of lay assistants in many common types of cases which currently fall victim to unscrupulous solicitors who unnecessarily complicate even the simplest of Sheriff Court cases to ensure larger fees for their little input.

However, a Scottish Parliament insider said he was slightly disappointed the Sheriff Court Rules Council had not been able to proceed the matter at a faster pace, as the Petitions Committee was due to hear Petition 1247 in September and had hoped to report the availability of McKenzie Friends in all of Scotland’s courts, bringing the Committee’s consideration of the issue to a successful conclusion.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Will fraud by solicitors, will-writers & accountants prove many professions cannot be trusted with consumers final wishes. A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN by solicitors & other financial professionals to retain market dominance in the multi billion pound will writing & will handling business in the UK has been brought back into focus in the past two weeks after allegations were made by solicitors against ‘cowboy’ will-writing private companies offering the same poor, often extortionately costing & woefully under regulated services for will-writing & will handling as many people have already experienced from the legal profession, who currently dominate the will writing & will handling market.

Put simply, solicitors, accountants, will-writers and all their colleagues who are in the will writing & will handling business, should not be trusted by members of the public to handle wills, final wishes & bequests. All are as bad as each other, and all are as poorly regulated as each other. Not one to mend another – trust one over the other, and you are sure to be ripped off, either by the solicitor, the accountant, the bank, or the will-writer.

Last week, the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners - the international professional body for workers in the trust industry and the (often overlapping) field of estate administration whose members are mainly solicitors, barristers, attorneys, accountants, trust officers and trust administrators as well as banking and insurance professionals in the trust field, issued a press release claiming that a Survey Reveals Incompetence and Dishonesty of “Cowboy” Will Writers. The Press Release from STEP, bearing in mind their membership includes solicitors, accountants & bankers, reads as follows :

Interim results from a survey published today by the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP), reveal the scale of the threat posed to the consumer from cowboys in the will writing market. The survey found that 75% of STEP members have encountered cases of “incompetence or dishonesty in the will writing market in the last 12 months”, and prompted STEP to again call for better consumer protection. Two thirds of respondents reported coming across hidden fees which were not outlined in the stated price for a will, and 63% had direct experience of cases where will writing companies had gone out of business and disappeared with their clients’ wills. Just over one third had encountered cases where incompetence had led to significant additional tax bills.

Chief Executive David Harvey said: “This research shows how widespread cowboy will writers have become and it is clear those who charge a fee for writing a will should now be regulated. They must have an appropriate qualification, and they must have proper indemnity insurance. Soon the consumer will be protected by new regulation in Scotland and this benefit needs to be extended to cover the rest of the UK."

Examples of malpractice included a company which approached young mothers in shopping malls, telling them their children would be taken into care after they died if they failed to make a will. One consumer was charged £12,000 up-front for executor services only for their family to find the firm involved had gone out of business not long after, disappearing with their wills and money. In June the Legal Services Board launched a review of the threat posed to consumers in England & Wales by unprofessional will writers and is currently seeking evidence of consumer harm. The Scottish Parliament is currently going through the process of regulating non-lawyer will writers through the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill.

Certainly an interesting Press Release from STEP, but it hardly tells the real story of what is going on in the UK will industry, where solicitors dominate the market. Notably, STEP use an example where one consumer was charged £12,000 up-front for executor services yet the Scottish legal profession can beat that hands down, where, to quote one example, Edinburgh law firm Turcan Connellcharged fees of more than £16,000 to administer an estate with net assets of under £14,000 – and the Law Society then rejected a complaint from the deceased client’s widow, Dr Kate Forrest.

The Herald newspaper reported : “[Dr] Forrest complained that the firm had told her only that it would charge £200 an hour, had entered into unnecessary work, and had failed to give her estimates, or issue itemised bills, despite repeated requests. She claims the firm then gave an undertaking to halt the charges, in a meeting with witnesses at the firm's office, but this did not materialise. When the Law Society examined the complaint, it ruled that the meeting could not be taken into account as the firm had no record of it, and it accepted an explanation by managing partner Douglas Connell that the complaint had been based entirely on a "misunderstanding".The £16,000 in charges had the effect of more than wiping out any assets in the estate, which had gross assets of £69,574 but debts of £55,731.”

Hardly a glowing recommendation for regulation by the Law Society of Scotland of solicitors handling wills, rather it proves deceased clients will be ripped off by any professional, with no recourse for their remaining family while the solicitor gets away with it – the perfect, ultimate, R.I.P. OFF.

BBC Panorama report into corruption in the will writing industry omitted problems of solicitors ripping off dead clients. Coincidentally, the BBC’s Panorama programme ran a report on the wills industry, highlighting various rip offs by will-writing companies. The programme bizarrely implied while will-writing companies were quite obviously ripping off consumers to the tune of thousands of pounds, the situation was very different if a solicitor handled a will – something many victims of solicitors mishandling wills all across the UK could easily dispute. Curiously the BBC Panorama programme on this issue is now no longer available, although readers can still view a summarised text version of the report carried out by Panorama journalist Vivian White, here : Call for tighter will-writing laws as consumers duped

Since the Law Society of Scotland (dubbed by some as the 'World's worst regulator') cant even regulate their own member solicitors when it comes to defrauding deceased clients, wills, executry estates & beneficiaries, I doubt the Law Society is going to be very effective in regulating anyone else who is involved in the rip off will writing & handling industry, unless of course, the Law Society simply use their regulatory powers as an excuse to wipe out the competition, ensuring everyone has to use a lawyer to write or handle a will.

This advice may be hard to swallow, but take it from one who has witnessed, investigated and been a victim of solicitors ripping off the dead – trust no lawyer, accountant, will writer, or any other so-called professional when it comes to your will & final testament, and never appoint one as your executor … its the sure fire road to perdition ….

Friday, August 13, 2010

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission needs external oversight, appeals tribunal, claim consumer groups. INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission along the lines of the former office of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman which scrutinised the Law Society of Scotland, but with extra powers of a tribunal appeals process & enforcement of decisions is now a must, claim consumer groups & legal insiders after a recent case in which a member of the public unsuccessfully applied to Scotland’s highest court, the Court of Session to be granted leave to appeal a decision by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to reject complaints made against a solicitor.

The appeal, raised by a Ms Debbie Chen Williams against the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s decision not to investigate complaints she had made against her solicitor, arose from legal representation Ms Williams received after she was charged on summary complaint with assault and breach of the peace at the Dunrowan Resource Centre in Falkirk. After a trial at Falkirk Sheriff Court on 28 October 2008, Ms Williams was convicted of the breach of the peace and acquitted of the assault. The penalty was admonition.

Ms Williams, in her application to the Court of Session, claimed her solicitor “had been unfamiliar with her case; agreed to evidence which she did not accept; failed to obtain an "Appropriate Adult" to be with her in court; failed to call relevant witnesses; failed to lodge relevant productions; threatened to withdraw from acting; failed to persuade the sheriff that he (the solicitor) could not properly represent the applicant; lacked interest in the case; failed to complain that the applicant had been victimised during the trial; not raised the issue of provocation; failed to raise issues of racial and disability discrimination; failed to assist her after the conviction; and, finally, tried to persuade her to plead guilty.” It was also alleged in the application to the court, Ms Williams had sustained injuries while in custody,

Ms William’s application to challenge was refused by Lord Calloway in an opinion handed down on 25 June 2010. Lord Calloway’s opinion, reproduced in full at the end of this report, concluded “The Court does not consider that it has been demonstrated that there is any merit in the applicant's case, as it was presented to the Commission. This application for leave to appeal is therefore refused.”

An official from one of Scotland’s consumer organisations criticised the current requirements of those challenging decisions made by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission who are forced to go to court.

She said : “l do not wish to comment on any specific case. However, the Court of Session’s refusal of leave to appeal a decision of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission highlights the need for a additional layer of oversight of the Commission, where an independent ombudsman’s office along the lines of the former Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman may be better placed in the first instance to deal with matters arising from appeals by either solicitors or complainers against SLCC decisions.”

She continued : “Clearly if there had been an ombudsman for the SLCC, complainers & solicitors would have an extra lawyer of scrutiny of decisions taken by the Commission, possibly preventing in most cases of dispute, any need for a court challenge.

"If a complainer or solicitor ultimately felt the need to challenge the SLCC's decision in court, any investigation carried out by an ombudsman could establish a greater degree of clarity on the disputed areas of a complaint or the SLCC's investigation of it, issues which are by no means clear from the way the Commission currently handle complaints against solicitors.”

A legal insider rounded on the Scottish Parliament for failing to enact some kind of appeals tribunal or external oversight of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which would lessen the need for court intervention.

He said : “Wasting the court’s time with appeals against the SLCC’s decisions on complaints against solicitors is a clear indication the LPLA Act was poorly drafted. At the very least, there should be an appeals tribunal mechanism for the Commission’s decisions before either party in the complaint feel they must approach the court.”

A Holyrood insider who worked on the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 during its difficult passage as the LPLA Bill in the Scottish Parliament in 2006, backed the idea of independent oversight of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, However, he urged caution to members of the public using the Court of Session to challenge the SLCC’s decisions on complaints.

He said : “While I appreciate going to court is currently the only option of challenging the SLCC’s decisions, clients who make complaints against their solicitors should realise there is historically little will on the part of the courts system to become embroiled in regulation of the legal profession.”

He continued : “Clients who feel they have been maligned by the SLCC’s decisions should channel their energies in campaigning for independent oversight of the Commission’s decisions which may prove a lot more useful in the long run than a string of rejections at the Court of Session which the SLCC will cynically use time & again as a basis to refuse to investigate complaints against the legal profession.”

Rosemary Agnew, the Acting Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refused to give any comment on the case. Also no word was given on whether the SLCC intended to recover its legal expenses.

[1] The applicant was charged on summary complaint with assault and breach of the peace at the Dunrowan Resource Centre. She proceeded to trial at Falkirk Sheriff Court on 28 October 2008. Although there is some confusion on this matter, it was the Commission's understanding that the applicant was convicted of the breach of the peace and acquitted of the assault. The penalty was admonition.

[2] The applicant complained about the quality of her representation to the Commission in terms of sub-section (2)(1) of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. In particular, she maintained that her solicitor had: been unfamiliar with her case; agreed to evidence which she did not accept; failed to obtain an "Appropriate Adult" to be with her in court; failed to call relevant witnesses; failed to lodge relevant productions; threatened to withdraw from acting; failed to persuade the sheriff that he (the solicitor) could not properly represent the applicant; lacked interest in the case; failed to complain that the applicant had been victimised during the trial; not raised the issue of provocation; failed to raise issues of racial and disability discrimination; failed to assist her after the conviction; and, finally, tried to persuade her to plead guilty.

[3] On 14 October 2009 the complaint was dismissed by the Commission as "totally without merit" in terms of sub-section 2(4) of the 2007 Act. The Commission considered how a reasonable person might perceive the complaint in light of the information presented to them. They observed that, on 23 October 2008, prior to the trial, there had been a lengthy meeting between the applicant and the solicitor, after which the solicitor thought that he had understood the case. He had witness statements from the procurator fiscal, which he went through with the applicant and noted her position. He had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the procurator fiscal not to proceed with the charges given the applicant's Asperger's syndrome.

The Commission noted that, in her initial complaint, the applicant had not stated what witnesses might have been called and which productions could have been lodged for the defence. There was a psychiatric report, which the court has been told was dated April 2008, stating that the applicant was sane and fit to plead (in the sense of being able to understand the proceedings and give appropriate instructions) and the solicitor had not considered that an Appropriate Adult was required.

There had been two occasions when the solicitor had considered withdrawing from acting, once when there was a problem with legal aid and once following a personal comment, which the solicitor said the applicant had made towards him. In the event, he did not withdraw from acting on any of these grounds, although two previous solicitors had done so.

[4] On 14 October 2009 the Commission concluded that there was nothing to suggest that the solicitor had failed to conduct the trial in an appropriate manner, using his professional judgment and expertise in that respect. No evidence of inadequate professional service, unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct had, in the view of the Commission, been made out.

[5] In her written application, the applicant seeks to appeal the Commission's decision on the basis that, in a letter to the Commission dated 1 September 2009, she had specified the names of two witnesses, notably M.W., her husband, and R.P., who the applicant says should have been precognosced and called to testify. That letter had referred to the solicitor's failure to lodge a medical report on, and photographs of, the applicant's injuries which she had received, she said, when she had been in custody.

The solicitor should also have obtained a report from the applicant's general medical practitioner concerning not only her injuries but the applicant's account of how she had sustained them. Furthermore, the Commission had a letter from the applicant dated 17 September 2009 complaining about the solicitor agreeing the evidence of a police officer.

[6] The Commission's enquiry had revealed that the solicitor had explained that he had discussed agreeing the evidence of the police officer with the applicant and his position was that she had consented to it being agreed. At no point during that enquiry had it been explained to the Commission what the relevance of the named witnesses' testimony might be. Neither had been present at the time of the incidents. At no point either had the applicant explained the relevance of the productions which she wished lodged.

[7] Before granting leave to appeal, the Court requires to be satisfied that an appeal in terms of section 21 of the 2007 Act has a real prospect of success or that there is some other compelling reason why it should be heard. The available grounds specified in section 21 are essentially matters which would previously have been described as errors of law. The Court does not consider that any of these grounds has been made out.

[8] Before the Court, a detailed explanation was given about a number of potential grounds of appeal which were said, in particular, to be relevant to sub-sections 21(4)(a) to (c). These included that certain matters ought to have been taken into consideration by the Commission and that further enquiries ought to have been carried out by the Commission in light of the information proffered by the applicant. It was also said that the solicitor had failed to advance certain defences, including automatism and self defence, at the trial and that proper enquiries had not been made by him in advance of the trial.

Although much detail was given of potential grounds of appeal, it is not unreasonable to comment that these are not foreshadowed in the written application for leave to appeal before the Court. Indeed, in the application itself there is no attempt to categorise any of the complaints narrated in paragraphs 2(a), (b) and (c) of the application in terms of section 21(4). But, in any event, it remains the position, when looking at the papers which were before the Commission, that the applicant did not explain what relevance the witnesses or productions might have had in the context of the summary trial.

The facts presented even now by the applicant would not have constituted a defence of automatism or self defence and provocation is not a defence. The significance of agreeing the policeman's evidence was also not explained, given that the officer was simply corroborating a colleague. Apart from these matters, the complaint appears to relate primarily to the applicant's impression of the solicitor's attitude rather than to his conduct.

Indeed, from the information presented to the Commission, the solicitor appears to have taken on the applicant's case at short notice, presented the relevant salient features of it to the Sheriff and achieved a measure of success. He had asked for an adjournment of the trial but this had been refused because the diet had been the fifth fixed for trial.

In these circumstances, like the Commission, the Court does not consider that it has been demonstrated that there is any merit in the applicant's case, as it was presented to the Commission. This application for leave to appeal is therefore refused.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Scotland’s Chief Judge, the Lord President, Lord Hamilton.SCOTS LITIGANTS who in some cases can spend many years waiting to gain dates for their cases to be heard in Scotland’s highest court, the Court of Session, may wish to spare a thought for the workload of the 34 Senators of the College of Justice (the Judges), who receive, (according to a Freedom of Information release from the Scottish Government), a collective annual salary of just over £6.1 million to keep Scots justice & the Court of Session rolling, ensuring justice is delivered as swiftly as is practicable in Scotland’s aging, sometimes dubbed ‘Victorian justice system’.

Admittedly, the ‘swiftness’ of the delivery of verdicts from the 34 judges can vary wildly, if for instance, the subject matter of the cases being heard involves those so-called ‘pillars’ of Scots public life, such as the legal, financial, or medical professions, public services, or public authorities, where cases have been known to drag on for years, astoundingly some even for over a decade.

As attitudes to justice change, along with public expectations of a more modern, functioning, fairer justice system – expectations recognised by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill in his excellent Civil Courts Review, perhaps its time for the Senators of the College of Justice to take a firmer hand against those same professions, public bodies & the like who regularly use Scotland’s highest court as a tool to deny justice to many individuals maligned by the many serious issues which merit the courts attention …

Salaries of Scotland’s 34 Judges of the Court of Session, who each earn more than the UK Prime Minister :

The Court of Session, Scotland's supreme civil court, sits in Parliament House in Edinburgh as a court of first instance and a court of appeal. An appeal lies to the House of Lords or, from 1st October 2009, to the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The origins of the court can be traced to the early sixteenth century. The court presently consists of judges who are designated "Senators of the College of Justice" or "Lords of Council and Session". Each judge takes the courtesy title of "Lord" or "Lady" followed by their surname or a territorial title. The court is headed by the Lord President, the second in rank being the Lord Justice Clerk.

For the purposes of hearing cases, the court is divided into the Outer House and the Inner House. The Outer House consists of 24 Lords Ordinary sitting alone or, in certain cases, with a civil jury. They hear cases at first instance on a wide range of civil matters, including cases based on delict (tort) and contract, commercial cases and judicial review. The judges cover a wide spectrum of work, but designated judges deal with intellectual property disputes. Special arrangements are made to deal with commercial cases.

The Inner House is in essence the appeal court, though it has a small range of first instance business. It is divided into the First and the Second Divisions, of equal authority, and presided over by the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk respectively. Judges are appointed by the Lord President and Lord Justice clerk with the consent of the Secretary of State. Each division is made up of five Judges, but the quorum is three. Due to pressure of business an Extra Division of three judges sits frequently nowadays. The Divisions hear cases on appeal from the Outer House, the Sheriff Court and certain tribunals and other bodies. On occasion, if a case is particularly important or difficult, or if it is necessary to overrule a previous binding authority, a larger court of five or more Judges may be convened.

Usually a case will be presented by an advocate, who is also referred to as "counsel", but a case may also be presented by a solicitor-advocate. Advocates are members of the Faculty of Advocates and have a status and function corresponding to that of a barrister in England. Advocates once had an exclusive right of audience in the Court of Session but, since 1990, they share that right with solicitor-advocates. Solicitor-advocates are members of the Law Society of Scotland. They are experienced solicitors who obtain an extension of their rights of audience by undergoing additional training in evidence and in the procedure of the Court of Session. In addition a practitioner from another member state of the European Union may appear for a client in the circumstances prescribed by the European Communities (Services of Lawyers) Order 1978. An individual who is a party to a case may conduct his own case but a firm or a company must always be represented by counsel or by a solicitor-advocate.

The decisions of the Court of Session are reported in Session Cases (cited as 1999 S.C. 100), Scots Law Times (cited as 1999 SLT 100) and Scottish Civil Law Reports (cited as 1999 SCLR 100). Decisions since the winter term of 1998 are available on the Opinions page.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Michael Clancy, the Law Society of Scotland's Director of Law Reform.MICHAEL CLANCY, the Law Society of Scotland’s Director of ‘Law Reform’, famed for frequenting both the Scottish & Westminster Parliaments & liaising with politicians on issues the Law Society of Scotland wants to influence, or block, has been invited to sit on the Calman Implementation Group, which has been formed to look at implementing proposals contained in the Calman Commission review of devolution, which produced its final report (pdf) on the ‘experience’ of Scottish devolution in June 2009.

The Calman Implementation Group, co-chaired by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and Exchequer Secretary to the UK Treasury, David Gauke, met on Monday, 26 July in Edinburgh, to discuss how the proposals would be taken forward. The BBC News report of that meeting can be viewed here : Calman plans 'empower' Holyrood . You can read more about what the Calman Commission actually recommended, in terms of its review of Scottish devolution, here : Digesting the Calman report

While Mr Clancy’s membership of the Calman Implementation Group was welcomed by the Law Society of Scotland, many in Scots political life know Mr Clancy as being more of a ‘reform blocker’ than a reform promoter, particularly when it comes to bringing the legal profession itself to heel in legislative changes affecting the way it regulates Scotland’s 10,000 plus solicitors. Several MSPs who, over the years have asked pointed questions on subjects relating to the justice system, and in particular, regulation of the legal profession have found themselves ‘called in’ by Mr Clancy to explain the Law Society’s point of view, which coincidentally led to those same MSPs closing off their inquiries into the Law Society of Scotland & the legal profession’s inability to represent client’s best interests …

Michael Clancy ordered reforms to the SLCC blocked at Holyrood. Among Mr Clancy’s noted interventions against consumer orientated reforms was his action against attempts to reform the ‘independent’ Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, with a Holyrood petition to allow it to re-investigate cases of historical complaints where the Law Society of Scotland had covered up for ‘crooked lawyers’ theft of client funds, in some cases numbering in the millions of pounds. Mr Clancy on that occasion ordered suggested to Holyrood’s Petitions Committee it should cease its study into any ideas of widening the scope of the SLCC’s remit, which you can read more about in a previous report, here : Truth & reconciliation fails as MacAskill follows Law Society orders to Parliament on attempt to heal public confidence in legal profession

After Mr Clancy and the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee killed off Petition PE1033 in September 2007, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission voted to refuse investigation of historical complaints.

To ensure any further attempts to present the ideas of Petition PE1033 to the Scottish Parliament were blocked, a legislative amendment to the LPLA Act, the Legal Services Act 2007 (Transitional, Savings and Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Order 2008 including a section on the SLCC’s investigation of historical complaints, was presented by the Scottish Government to the Justice Committee in September 2008, quietly supported by the SLCC & the Law Society of Scotland and passed by the Scottish Parliament, which ensured no one could ever ask the SLCC again to investigate historical complaints against ‘crooked lawyers’ which the Law Society had deliberately mishandled.

The Law Society of Scotland’s self-congratulatory media release media release on Mr Clancy’s ‘invitation’ to join the Calman Implementation Group, states : “The Law Society of Scotland is delighted that their Director of Law Reform, Michael Clancy, has been invited to sit on the Calman Implementation Group, which will look at implementing proposals contained in the Calman Commission review of devolution.”

James Aitken, member of the Society's tax law and constitutional law sub committees, deputising for Mr Clancy at today's meeting said: "The meeting was very positive and I was particularly pleased to see that a large number of the proposals put forward by the Society have already been taken on board and will be implemented. Smaller technical groups will now be created, and we look forward to a number of our members being involved in more detailed discussions on areas that will be devolved."

“The Society has provided detailed written and oral evidence to the Calman Commission over the last few years, and was pleased to hear commitment from the Government to introducing the proposals in a Scotland Bill this autumn, with full implementation by 2015. The Society was in favour of the Calman review and had substantive comments on a number of areas including the Scotland Act 1998, Schedule 5 changes, especially in insolvency (where this should be reserved) and charity law, tax law provisions and changes to Scottish Parliament procedures.”

The Law Society's written evidence, submitted in October 2008 can be found HERE, all of which you can be rest assured, benefits the legal profession over the rest of us.

If the Calman Commission is supposed to be so reforming, and good for Scotland, then why invite those to its ranks whose mission it seems, is to destroy reforms for the good of ordinary Scots, and protect the vested interests of big business & the professions …

Search This Blog

Contact the Diary

Have a tip or a story about a lawyer, a judge, the legal profession, Judiciary, Crown Office, a Court case, issues of Justice or Injustice, information on corruption in public bodies, politics & Government?

Crown Corrupt - Prosecutors criminal convictions revealed

Exclusive Report: Documents obtained by the Scottish Sun newspaper reveal Prosecutors based at Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) have been charged with a string of criminal offences over crimes ranging from violence to misuse of drugs, making threats and offences against Police Officers.

Crown Office Jet Set Prosecutors air travel junkets revealed

Exclusive Report: Prosecutors based in Edinburgh at the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) - are now spending as much time in the air jetting between international destinations than chasing some of Scotland’s biggest crooks, tax dodgers, gangsters & serial offenders.

Documents obtained by the Scottish Sun newspaper show Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland and his team of staff jetting off to 39 international destinations including Hong Kong, Mauritius, Taiwan South Africa, Australia, Malta, San Francisco, and New York – all visited by Crown Office employees on taxpayer funded air junkets. Read more here: CRIME FLIES: Crown Office jet set junket racket

The proposals, backed by cross party MSPs during a debate in the Parliament’s main chamber on 9 October 2014 - Debating the Judges - call for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

UK consumers want independent regulation of lawyers

Media Report: RESEARCH conducted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) – the body charged with investigating solicitors in England & Wales, shows there is strong support in the rest of the UK for a move to make the SRA fully independent of the Law Society of England & Wales.

Law & Disorder - Law Society self regulation protects solicitors

Crime Society: The powerful Law Society of Scotland – the lawyer’s trade union body which controls self regulation of Scottish solicitors – is facing calls to be stripped of any role in regulating the legal profession.

The Scottish Sun’s The Big Read: Law and disorder reports: CRITICS are calling for an end to the secretive “old boys’ club” which sees Scots lawyers police themselves. It took the Law Society of Scotland four years to give police details of its probe into an alleged mortgage fraud linked to solicitor Christopher Hales and MP Michelle Thomson. But legal experts insist this would not have happened if we had the same system of outside supervision that operates down south.

A new Lord President: Selecting a top judge for Scotland

The position of Lord President – with a salary of £220,655 a year, including perks, international travel and unrivalled power to challenge even the Scottish Parliament - is responsible for leadership of the entire Scottish judiciary in addition to chairing the Board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The Lord President is the most senior judge in Scotland, with authority over any court established under Scots law, apart from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

In response to questions from MSPs, JCR Gillian Thompson said: “I do not see that there is a reasonable argument to be made against people who are in public service—I might go further and say, in particular, people who are paid by the public pound—providing information, within reason, about their other activities.” Facing further detailed questions from the committee, JCR Gillian Thompson remained of the view judges should declare their interests including business activities, shareholdings and more – in a publicly available register of judicial interests.

Scotland's first Judicial Complaints Reviewer supports creating a register of interests for judges

The top judge came unstuck after he opposed the declaration of judicial interests, wealth & connections to big business. Prior to retirement, Gill waged a bitter two year battle with Scottish Parliament MSPs who are investigating proposals to create a register of judicial interests.

Wolffe Hall: Parliament House land titles lost to Faculty of Advocates

Media Report: Aninvestigation has revealedParliament House – the seat of power for Scotland’s judiciary and the nation’s highest, most expensive, elusive and pro-big business courts – has been lost to Edinburgh City Council after it was revealed Scottish Ministers gifted the land titles to the Faculty of Advocates after a £58m public funded refit of the sprawling court complex. Media attention to the land grab and questions in the Scottish Parliament have prompted Edinburgh City Council to demand the courts be returned to public ownership.

In a speech to the Commonwealth Law Conference 2015 in Glasgow, Lord Gill went on to joke about protesters being lucky they are not dragged away by Police. Gill took further shots at politics, judicial independence and democracy before fleeing the legal gathering with Lord Neuberger and other judges after they learned Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was booked to speak at the event.

Revealed: The bank of Scottish Legal Aid

Revealed: TIMES ARE TOUGH but not for Scotland’s legal profession as it was revealed the Scottish Legal Aid Board handed over more than One Billion Pounds of public money to lawyers since the 2008 financial market crash. The Billion pound Bank of Scottish Legal Aid is there to help out Scotland’s ‘struggling’ lawyers looking for a second car, fishing rights, sending kids to posh private schools, or a third buy-to-let property. Scottish Legal Aid figures paid to lawyers since 2008 reveal: 2013-14 £150.5m, 2012-13 £150.2m, 2011-12 £150.7m, 2010-11 £161.4m, 2009-10 £150.5m, 2008-09 £150.2m, 2007-08 £155.1m, total: £1.06Billion (£1,068.6m)

Scottish Parliament debate urges support for register of judicial interests

Media ReportMSPs overwhelmingly support a petition urging the Scottish Government to give further consideration to a register of interests for judges. The 90 minute debate, held on Thursday 09 October 2014 in the Scottish Parliament’s main chamber saw msps criticise Scotland’s secretive judges who refuse to disclose their hidden wealth, secret links to big business and even criminal records. Read more about the proposals for judicial transparency put forward in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary and watch video clips of MSPs debating a register of interests for judges at InjusticeTV. The official report of the debate including video footage of each MSP who spoke can be found here: Debating the Judges

Revealed: Judges International travel junkets & state visits

Exclusive Report: JET-SETTING judges spent £26,000 of taxpayers' cash on overseas trips last year, a Scottish Sun on Sunday investigation can reveal. Top beaks flew out to destinations including Russia, Israel, Switzerland, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Qatar. The most expensive was a £5,800 trip to Canada by Scotland's second most senior judge, Lord Carloway. Lord Gill - who is the Lord President - also spent five days on a £2,800 trip to Doha, Qatar, where he gave speech on judicial ethics.

Judicial Rich-List reveals Judges financial links to crime companies

Exclusive Report: DISCLOSURES of judges personal shareholdings obtained under Freedom of Information legislation from the Scottish Court Service reveal a startling snapshot of the wealth of several key members of Scotland’s judiciary who sit on a powerful quango which controls Scotland’s courts. The declarations of the seven judicial members of the Scottish Court Service Board – including Scotland's top judge, the Lord President & Lord Justice General Brian Gill who earns £220K a year - reveal judges benefit financially from shareholdings in companies who provide services to the courts & justice system, companies convicted of criminal offences & involvement in ‘industrial’ espionage against China, banks fined for international financial market manipulation, and companies involved in bribes, bid rigging, and tax dodging.

Revealed: Top judge forced to recuse over relative in court

Exclusive Report: SCOTLAND’S top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill has been forced to stand aside from hearing an unidentified case in the Court of Session because a relative who turned out to be Brian Gill jr, one of Lord Gill’s sons, represented a party involved in the court action which court officials are keeping secret.

Judge invests in bribes scandal companies

Exclusive Report: An investigation by the Scottish Sun on Sunday newspaper has revealed a top judge holds shares in a firm hit with a £13.9million proceeds-of-crime bill for bribing Saddam Hussein's regime,The Scottish Sun on Sunday can reveal. Sheriff Principal Alastair Dunlop 62, has a stake in Glasgow based Weir Group, hammered in 2011 for paying kickbacks to land contracts in Iraq. He also has shares in mining giant Rio Tinto, whose executives admitted bribery in China four years ago. A Holyrood committee is considering proposals that would require judges and sheriffs to publish their outside interests, including details of their finances, reported here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Judges reveal conflicts of interest

Exclusive Report: The Sunday Mail newspaper reports Scotland's judges are coming clean when they have to step away from court cases because of a conflict of interests. Scotland’s top judge has decided that for the first time the public can see online why judges and sheriffs have stood down from hearing criminal trials and civil actions. It comes after the Sunday Mail told of MSPs' anger that the Lord President Lord Gill had dismissed calls for a judicial register of interests and snubbed invitations to discuss his position at a Holyrood committee, reported in previous coverage here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Judges interests & shareholdings revealed

Exclusive Report: An investigation by the Sunday Herald newspaper reveals a senior sheriff presided over a court hearing involving Tesco at the same time as he held shares in the multi-national supermarket giant. Sheriff Principal Dunlop QC did not absent himself because having shares in a company that is party to a court action does not require a member of the judiciary to step down from a case. A Holyrood committee is considering proposals that would require judges and sheriffs to publish their outside interests, including details of their finances, reported in previous coverage here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Top judge in private meeting on judicial transparency petition

Media Report: Top judge Lord Gill met petitions committee members behind closed doors to discuss Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary and conflict of interests, but no minutes were taken. The Sunday Mail reports Scotland’s top judge met two MSPs in private after twice snubbing requests to give evidence in front of their committee. The judge is opposed to the transparency call and has previously refused invitations to attend the Scottish Parliament and face questions in public on his opposition to judicial transparency and the creation of a register of judicial interests. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Small concession offered by top judge as calls grow for judicial transparency

Judges should not be above scrutiny

Media Editorial: The Sunday Herald newspaper says in an editorial Judges should not be above scrutiny. The Lord President, who is the country's top judge, is against requiring his colleagues to list their financial interests (as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary) but he seems to have recognised political concerns about a lack of transparency.To this end, he is investigating the possibility of compiling a register of "recusals", which means examples of judges ceasing an interest in a court case due to a perceived conflict. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Scotland’s top judge takes anti-transparency position on proposal for judicial interests register

Lack of judicial transparency - No justice if it cannot be seen

Media Editorial: The Sunday Mail newspaper says Senior judge's refusal to give evidence to MSPs shows a lack of transparency, says Mail Opinion on calls for judicial transparency in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. It was an opportunity for Scotland’s top judge to go to Parliament and talk about how our legal system works and might work better. It would have added, as the public relations executives and politicians like to say, a little transparency. Instead, his refusal has only hardened the suspicion that our judges live and work in a bubble smelling of horse hair wigs, vintage port and even more vintage attitudes. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

NEWS SPECIAL: Coverage of the Annual Report 2012-2013 of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer reveals Scottish judges are slammed for secrecy, anti-transparency views & how they investigate complaints against other judges.Moi Ali, appointed by the SNP’s Justice Secretary as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewersaid: “I think fundamentally the problem is the legislation. “The way it’s created, it’s about self- regulation so you have judges judging judges’ conduct. There isn’t really an independent element.”. Read more HERE

REVEALED : Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer gave evidence to MSPs at the Scottish Parliament stating her office has no powers to properly investigate complaints against Scottish judges and that the judicial office regularly block access to files and information relating to complaints. In England & Wales, it is done very differently. Read more HERE

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Scotland’s judiciary are refusing to cooperate with the independently appointed Judicial Complaints Reviewer over complaints made against Scottish judges. Scotland’s top judge also stands accused of regularly blocking independent access to key documents relating to allegations made against judges. Read more HERE

Scotland's top judge objects to Holyrood transparency call for a register of judicial interests

Exclusive Report : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill claims judges are exempt from declaring their full financial & other interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary A register could be created by the Scottish Parliament or by the Judicial Office for Scotland, which incorporates the Lord President’s office. Typically, such registers reveal details of hospitality, gifts, property ownership, shareholdings and personal or financial connections to outside organisations.

If you think Scotland's judges are honest, think again. An investigation reveals the true extent of their undeclared finances & interests. Read more HERE. Investigations have revealed Scotland's Judges have secret criminal records, massive wealth, unchecked influence, & murky investments along with connections to offshore tax havens, all of which go undeclared as there is no register of interests for the judiciary.

Business Interests: Are Scottish Judges overseas trips really just about law conferences?

Exclusive Report: Scotland's judges have racked up thousands of air miles on overseas trips, including jaunts to the US, India, Morocco and Malaysia. Taxpayers paid £83,644 to send judges and sheriffs and their partners around the world in the past three years revealed in this document. The Lord President also travels to Taiwan, South Africa & other countries yet refuses to travel 700m to the Scottish Parliament to face MSPs questions about judges’ secret undeclared interests.

Exclusive Report : A report published by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice reveals Scottish lawyers take home a lavish £161million in legal aid payments on a tiny client base compared to other EU countries’ lawyers. The EU REPORT also shows that Scotland disciplines a tiny number of lawyers compared to countries of similar size, and that Scotland’s sheriffs & judges top the EU pay league. A large proportion of alleged criminals reported to prosecutors in Scotland are also escaping justice while lawyers scoop up legal aid fees for dealing with cases which never make it to court.

EU Justice Report : Scots Justice System is most expensive, has poorest regulation in Europe

A MUST READ REPORT by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice reveals the Scottish justice system as the most unproductive, yet most expensive in the entire European Union. Scottish lawyers take tens of millions more in legal aid representing a population of 5 million than Italian lawyers who serve a population of 60 million. The report also reveals Scots judges are paid the highest in Europe, Scottish Sheriffs taking home an average taxpayer funded salary of £120K plus, while others in Scotland’s judiciary are paid £200K plus expenses.

The Scottish Civil Courts Review of 2009 authored by the then Lord Justice Clerk, now Lord President Lord Brian Gill, castigated Scotland’s Civil Justice System as being Victorian, costly, and unfit for purpose, yet years on from the review, little of the proposed reforms have been implemented due to pressure from vested interests in the legal world, and a lack of political will to deliver access to justice to all Scots.

The ‘independent’ lawyer run Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has lurched from scandal to scandal, and proved to be even worse at regulating complaints against Scottish solicitors than the Law Society of Scotland. Clients of Scottish solicitors who are forced to make complaints to the SLCC should read our previous reports on how the anti-client regulator may treat their case.

Exclusive Report: A Research Report from the University of Manchester School of Law, commissioned by the SLCC on the Law Society of Scotland’s two discredited client compensation schemes, the Master Insurance Policy & Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund reveals the extent of suicides, illness, broken families and financial ruin among clients who fall victim to rogue solicitors and attempt financial claims in order to recover funds & assets embezzled or stolen by their lawyers. The research report concludes the Law Society's Master Policy is set up “to allow solicitors to sleep at night”, so they can go on to ruin other unsuspecting clients. Read the full shocking story HERE

Name & Shame your crooked lawyer in the media

If you are making a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), Law Society of Scotland or Faculty of Advocates about your solicitor or legal representatives, one of the best things you can do is tell the media about it & name your crooked lawyer.

Revealed: Suspended & Bankrupt lawyers are secretly still working in Scotland

Exclusive Report: An investigation has revealed twice suspended but still working as a solicitor John G O'Donnell has impersonated a deceased lawyer as part of an elaborate fraud, while staff at the law firm he worked at said nothing to clients. The Law Society of Scotland did nothing to prevent O’Donnell continuing his reign of scams against clients even after he was twice suspended & made bankrupt. O’Donnell was only found out after one of his clients, saw his photograph in an earlier Sunday Mail newspaper investigation..

Exclusive Report: An investigation has revealed a lawyer who works for the Citizens Advice Bureau is being probed after it’s claimed he targeted vulnerable clients for a crooked legal firm. A client involved in a rent dispute turned to CAB lawyer Gilbert Anderson, who is based at Hamilton Sheriff Court on a taxpayer funded salary. But the ex-Royal Marine sent the client and a friend into the clutches of twice suspended solicitor John G O'Donnell , who does not have a practicing certificate.

BONUS CULTURE of Crown Office fails to deliver justice

An investigation reveals Scotland’s Prosecutors have been caught up in their own BONUS CULTURE where fat cash hand-outs at the end of the year worth tens of thousands of pounds and sly Press Releases short on facts seem to be more important than catching real crooks and delivering on protecting the Scots public.

One of Scotland’s most famous Crooked Lawyers, Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso in the Scottish Borders. Read the MEDIA COVERAGE of the case, details which the Law Society of Scotland and several Edinburgh law firms tried to bury.

If you have a similar experience with Stormonth Darling Solicitors, or any other corrupt law firm, we want to hear about it at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com